Sex concordance between physicians and patients and discharge opioid prescribing.

Inpatient pain management is challenging for clinicians and inequities are prevalent. We examined sex concordance between physicians and patients to determine if discordance was associated with disparate opioid prescribing on hospital discharge. We examined 15,339 hospitalizations from 2013 to 2021. Adjusting for patient, clinical, and hospitalization-level characteristics, we calculated the odds of a patient receiving an opioid on discharge and the days of opioids prescribed across all hospitalizations and for patients admitted with a common pain diagnosis. We did not find an overall association between physician-patient sex concordance and discharge opioid prescriptions. Compared to concordant sex pairs, patients in discordant pairs were not significantly less likely to receive an opioid prescription (odds ratio: 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95, 1.15) and did not receive significantly fewer days of opioids (2.1 fewer days of opioids; 95% CI: -4.4, 0.4). Better understanding relationships between physician and patient characteristics is essential to achieve more equitable prescribing.

Breaking barriers, building faculty: A qualitative analysis to exploring faculty development in academic hospital medicine.

BACKGROUND: Hospital medicine (HM) continues to be primarily composed of junior hospitalists and research has highlighted a paucity of mentors and academic output. Faculty advancement programs have been identified as a means to support junior hospitalists in their career trajectories and to advance the field. The optimal approach to supporting faculty development (FD) efforts is not known. OBJECTIVE: To understand hospitalist groups' approaches to FD, including efforts that were perceived to be effective, and to identify barriers as well as potential future directions for FD. DESIGN: Rapid qualitative methods were utilized including templated summaries and matrix analysis to identify major themes. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Virtual focus groups with hospitalists in the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN). MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Qualitative themes RESULTS: Nineteen individuals from 17 unique institutions from across the United States in May 2022 participated in seven focus groups. Four key themes emerged from the study and included (1) academic hospitalist programs face multifaceted challenges and barriers to FD in HM, (2) groups have embraced a diversity of structures and frameworks, (3) due to clinical volumes, FD programs have had to adapt and evolve to meet FD needs, and (4) participants identified multiple areas for improvement, including defining tangible outcomes of FD programs and creating a repository of FD material which can be shared widely.

Impact of billing reforms on academic hospitalist physician and advanced practice provider collaboration: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Medicare previously announced plans for new billing reforms for inpatient visits that are shared by physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) whereby the clinician spending the most time on the patient visit would bill for the visit. OBJECTIVE: To understand how inpatient hospital medicine teams utilize APPs in patient care and how the proposed billing policies might impact future APP utilization. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted focus groups with hospitalist physicians, APPs, and other leaders from 21 academic hospitals across the United States. Utilizing rapid qualitative methods, focus groups were analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive method at the semantic level with templated summaries and matrix analysis. Thirty-three individuals (physicians [n = 21], APPs [n = 10], practice manager [n = 1], and patient representative [n = 1]) participated in six focus groups. RESULTS: Four themes emerged from the analysis of the focus groups, including: (1) staffing models with APPs are rapidly evolving, (2) these changes were felt to be driven by staffing shortages, financial models, and governance with minimal consideration to teamwork and relationships, (3) time-based billing was perceived to value tasks over cognitive workload, and (4) that the proposed billing changes may create unintended consequences impacting collaboration and professional satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Physician and APP collaborative care models are increasingly evolving to independent visits often driven by workloads, financial drivers, and local regulations such as medical staff rules and hospital bylaws. Understanding which staffing models produce optimal patient, clinician, and organizational outcomes should inform billing policies rather than the reverse.

Stigmatizing Language, Patient Demographics, and Errors in the Diagnostic Process.

This cohort study assesses the association between stigmatizing language, demographic characteristics, and errors in the diagnostic process among hospitalized adults.

Hospitalist Shared Leadership for Safety, Health, and Well-Being at Work: United States, 2022‒2023.

We assessed how hospitalists frame workplace safety, health, and well-being (SHW); their perception of hospital supports for SHW; and whether and how they are sharing leadership responsibility for each other's SHW. Our findings highlight the important role of local support for hospitalist SHW and reveal the systemic, hospital-wide problems that may impede their SHW. We believe that positioning hospitalists as leaders for SHW will result in systems-wide changes in practices to support the SHW of all care team members. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(S2):S162-S166. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307573).

Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Adults Who Died or Were Transferred to Intensive Care.

Importance: Diagnostic errors contribute to patient harm, though few data exist to describe their prevalence or underlying causes among medical inpatients. Objective: To determine the prevalence, underlying cause, and harms of diagnostic errors among hospitalized adults transferred to an intensive care unit (ICU) or who died. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study conducted at 29 academic medical centers in the US in a random sample of adults hospitalized with general medical conditions and who were transferred to an ICU, died, or both from January 1 to December 31, 2019. Each record was reviewed by 2 trained clinicians to determine whether a diagnostic error occurred (ie, missed or delayed diagnosis), identify diagnostic process faults, and classify harms. Multivariable models estimated association between process faults and diagnostic error. Opportunity for diagnostic error reduction associated with each fault was estimated using the adjusted proportion attributable fraction (aPAF). Data analysis was performed from April through September 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Whether or not a diagnostic error took place, the frequency of underlying causes of errors, and harms associated with those errors. Results: Of 2428 patient records at 29 hospitals that underwent review (mean [SD] patient age, 63.9 [17.0] years; 1107 [45.6%] female and 1321 male individuals [54.4%]), 550 patients (23.0%; 95% CI, 20.9%-25.3%) had experienced a diagnostic error. Errors were judged to have contributed to temporary harm, permanent harm, or death in 436 patients (17.8%; 95% CI, 15.9%-19.8%); among the 1863 patients who died, diagnostic error was judged to have contributed to death in 121 (6.6%; 95% CI, 5.3%-8.2%). In multivariable models examining process faults associated with any diagnostic error, patient assessment problems (aPAF, 21.4%; 95% CI, 16.4%-26.4%) and problems with test ordering and interpretation (aPAF, 19.9%; 95% CI, 14.7%-25.1%) had the highest opportunity to reduce diagnostic errors; similar ranking was seen in multivariable models examining harmful diagnostic errors. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, diagnostic errors in hospitalized adults who died or were transferred to the ICU were common and associated with patient harm. Problems with choosing and interpreting tests and the processes involved with clinician assessment are high-priority areas for improvement efforts.

National Survey of Patient Safety Experiences in Hospital Medicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals were caring for increasing numbers of patients with a novel and highly contagious respiratory illness, forcing adaptations in care delivery. The objective of this study was to understand the impact of these adaptations on patient safety in hospital medicine. METHODS: The authors conducted a nationwide survey to understand patient safety challenges experienced by hospital medicine clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was distributed to members of the Society of Hospital Medicine via an e-mail listserv. It consisted of closed- and open-ended questions to elicit respondents' experience in five domains: error reporting and communication, staffing, equipment, personal protective equipment (PPE) and isolation practices, and infrastructure. Quantitative questions were reported as counts and percentages; qualitative responses were coded and analyzed for relevant themes. RESULTS: Of 196 total responses, 167 respondents (85.2%) were attending physicians and 85 (43.8%) practiced at teaching hospitals. Safety concerns commonly identified included nursing shortages (71.0%), limiting patient interactions to conserve PPE (61.9%), and feeling that one was practicing in a more hazardous environment (61.4%). In free-text responses, clinicians described poor outcomes and patient decompensation due to provider and equipment shortages, as well as communication lapses and diagnostic errors resulting from decreased patient contact and the need to follow isolation protocols. CONCLUSION: Efforts made to accommodate shortages in staff and equipment, adapt to limited PPE, and enforce isolation policies had unintended consequences that affected patient safety and created a more hazardous environment characterized by less efficient care, respiratory decompensations, diagnostic errors, and poor communication with patients.

Post-Hospitalization Home Monitoring Programs During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Survey Results from the Hospital Medicine Re-engineering Network (HOMERuN).

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, hospitals and healthcare systems launched innovative responses to emerging needs. The creation and use of programs to remotely follow patient clinical status and recovery after COVID-19 hospitalization has not been thoroughly described. OBJECTIVE: To characterize deployment of remote post-hospital discharge monitoring programs during the COVID-19 pandemic METHODS: Electronic surveys were administered to leaders of 83 US academic hospitals in the Hospital Medicine Re-engineering Network (HOMERuN). An initial survey was completed in March 2021 with follow-up survey completed in July 2022. RESULTS: There were 35 responses to the initial survey (42%) and 15 responses to the follow-up survey (43%). Twenty-two (63%) sites reported a post-discharge monitoring program, 16 of which were newly developed for COVID-19. Physiologic monitoring devices such as pulse oximeters were often provided. Communication with medical teams was often via telephone, with moderate use of apps or electronic medical record integration. Programs launched most commonly between January and June 2020. Only three programs were still active at the time of follow-up survey. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate rapid, ad hoc development of post-hospital discharge monitoring programs during the COVID-19 pandemic but with little standardization or evaluation. Additional study could identify the benefits of these programs, instruct their potential application to other disease processes, and inform further development as part of emergency preparedness for upcoming crises.

Electronic health record intervention to increase use of NSAIDs as analgesia for hospitalised patients: a cluster randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing non-opioid pain medications, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAIDs) medications, has been shown to reduce pain and decrease opioid use, but it is unclear how to effectively encourage multimodal pain medication prescribing for hospitalised patients. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of prechecking non-opioid pain medication orders on clinician prescribing of NSAIDs among hospitalised adults. METHODS: This was a cluster randomised controlled trial of adult (≥18 years) hospitalised patients admitted to three hospital sites under one quaternary hospital system in the USA from 2 March 2022 to 3 March 2023. A multimodal pain order panel was embedded in the admission order set, with NSAIDs prechecked in the intervention group. The intervention group could uncheck the NSAID order. The control group had access to the same NSAID order. The primary outcome was an increase in NSAID ordering. Secondary outcomes include NSAID administration, inpatient pain scores and opioid use and prescribing and relevant clinical harms including acute kidney injury, new gastrointestinal bleed and in-hospital death. RESULTS: Overall, 1049 clinicians were randomised. The study included 6239 patients for a total of 9595 encounters. Both NSAID ordering (36 vs 43%, p<0.001) and administering (30 vs 34%, p=0.001) by the end of the first full hospital day were higher in the intervention (prechecked) group. There was no statistically significant difference in opioid outcomes during the hospitalisation and at discharge. There was a statistically but perhaps not clinically significant difference in pain scores during both the first and last full hospital day. CONCLUSIONS: This cluster randomised controlled trial showed that prechecking an order for NSAIDs to promote multimodal pain management in the admission order set increased NSAID ordering and administration, although there were no changes to pain scores or opioid use. While prechecking orders is an important way to increase adoption, safety checks should be in place.

Achieving diagnostic excellence through prevention and teamwork (ADEPT) study protocol: A multicenter, prospective quality and safety program to improve diagnostic processes in medical inpatients.

BACKGROUND: Few hospitals have built surveillance for diagnostic errors into usual care or used comparative quantitative and qualitative data to understand their diagnostic processes and implement interventions designed to reduce these errors. OBJECTIVES: To build surveillance for diagnostic errors into usual care, benchmark diagnostic performance across sites, pilot test interventions, and evaluate the program's impact on diagnostic error rates. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Achieving diagnostic excellence through prevention and teamwork (ADEPT) is a multicenter, real-world quality and safety program utilizing interrupted time-series techniques to evaluate outcomes. Study subjects will be a randomly sampled population of medical patients hospitalized at 16 US hospitals who died, were transferred to intensive care, or had a rapid response during the hospitalization. Surveillance for diagnostic errors will occur on 10 events per month per site using a previously established two-person adjudication process. Concurrent reviews of patients who had a qualifying event in the previous week will allow for surveys of clinicians to better understand contributors to diagnostic error, or conversely, examples of diagnostic excellence, which cannot be gleaned from medical record review alone. With guidance from national experts in quality and safety, sites will report and benchmark diagnostic error rates, share lessons regarding underlying causes, and design, implement, and pilot test interventions using both Safety I and Safety II approaches aimed at patients, providers, and health systems. Safety II approaches will focus on cases where diagnostic error did not occur, applying theories of how people and systems are able to succeed under varying conditions. The primary outcome will be the number of diagnostic errors per patient, using segmented multivariable regression to evaluate change in y-intercept and change in slope after initiation of the program. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the University of California, San Francisco Institutional Review Board (IRB), which is serving as the single IRB. Intervention toolkits and study findings will be disseminated through partners including Vizient, The Joint Commission, and Press-Ganey, and through national meetings, scientific journals, and publications aimed at the general public.

Optimizing Uptake of Multimodal Pain Management After Surgery Using the Electronic Health Record.

This quality improvement study evaluates the effect of an electronic health record intervention on multimodal pain management following surgery in 2 randomized clinical trials.

Governance of Electronic Health Record Modification at U.S. Academic Medical Centers.

OBJECTIVES: A key aspect of electronic health record (EHR) governance involves the approach to EHR modification. We report a descriptive study to characterize EHR governance at academic medical centers (AMCs) across the United States. METHODS: We conducted interviews with the Chief Medical Information Officers of 18 AMCs about the process of EHR modification for standard requests. Recordings of the interviews were analyzed to identify categories within prespecified domains. Responses were then assigned to categories for each domain. RESULTS: At our AMCs, EHR requests were governed variably, with a similar number of sites using quantitative scoring systems (7, 38.9%), qualitative systems (5, 27.8%), or no scoring system (6, 33.3%). Two (11%) organizations formally review all requests for their impact on health equity. Although 14 (78%) organizations have trained physician builders/architects, their primary role was not for EHR build. Most commonly reported governance challenges included request volume (11, 61%), integrating diverse clinician input (3, 17%), and stakeholder buy-in (3, 17%). The slowest step in the process was clarifying end user requests (14, 78%). Few leaders had identified metrics for the success of EHR governance. CONCLUSION: Governance approaches for managing EHR modification at AMCs are highly variable, which suggests ongoing efforts to balance EHR standardization and maintenance burden, while dealing with a high volume of requests. Developing metrics to capture the performance of governance and quantify problems may be a key step in identifying best practices.

Exploring the Impact of COVID-19 on Women Hospitalists: A Mixed-Gender Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Women physicians have faced persistent challenges, including gender bias, salary inequities, a disproportionate share of caregiving and domestic responsibilities, and limited representation in leadership. Data indicate the COVID-19 pandemic further highlighted and exacerbated these inequities. OBJECTIVE: To understand the pandemic's impact on women physicians and to brainstorm solutions to better support women physicians. DESIGN: Mixed-gender semi-structured focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalists in the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN). APPROACH: Six semi-structured virtual focus groups were held with 22 individuals from 13 institutions comprised primarily of academic hospitalist physicians. Rapid qualitative methods including templated summaries and matrix analysis were applied to identify major themes and subthemes. KEY RESULTS: Four key themes emerged: (1) the pandemic exacerbated perceived gender inequities, (2) women's academic productivity and career development were negatively impacted, (3) women held disproportionate roles as caregivers and household managers, and (4) institutional pandemic responses were often misaligned with workforce needs, especially those of women hospitalists. Multiple interventions were proposed including: creating targeted workforce solutions and benefits to address the disproportionate caregiving burden placed on women, addressing hospitalist scheduling and leave practices, ensuring promotion pathways value clinical and COVID-19 contributions, creating transparency around salary and non-clinical time allocation, and ensuring women are better represented in leadership roles. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalists perceived and experienced that women physicians faced negative impacts from the pandemic in multiple domains including leadership opportunities and scholarship, while also shouldering larger caregiving duties than men. There are many opportunities to improve workplace conditions for women; however, current institutional efforts were perceived as misaligned to actual needs. Thus, policy and programmatic changes, such as those proposed by this cohort of hospitalists, are needed to advance equity in the workplace.

Diagnostic and prognostic value of cardiac stress testing before major noncardiac surgery-A cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental contribution of preoperative stress test results toward a diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), prediction of mortality, or prediction of perioperative myocardial infarction in patients considering noncardiac, nonophthalmologic surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study of visits to a preoperative risk assessment and optimization clinic in a large health system between 2008 and 2018. MEASUREMENTS: To assess diagnostic information of preoperative stress testing, we used the Begg and Greenes method to calculate test characteristics adjusted for referral bias, with a gold standard of angiography. To assess prognostic information, we first created multiply-imputed logistic regression models to predict 90-day mortality and perioperative myocardial infarction (MI), starting with two tools commonly used to assess perioperative cardiac risk, Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) and Myocardial Infarction or Cardiac Arrest (MICA). We then added stress test results and compared the discrimination for models with and without stress test results. MAIN RESULTS: Among 136,935 visits by patients without an existing diagnosis of CAD, the decision to obtain preoperative stress testing identified around 4.0% of likely new diagnoses. Stress testing increased the likelihood of CAD (likelihood ratio: 1.31), but for over 99% of patients, stress testing should not change a decision on whether to proceed to angiography. In 117,445 visits with subsequent noncardiac surgery, stress test results failed to improve predictions of either perioperative MI or 90-day mortality. Reweighting the models and adding hemoglobin improved the prediction of both outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac stress testing before noncardiac, nonophthalmologic surgery does not improve predictions of either perioperative mortality or myocardial infarction. Very few patients considering noncardiac, nonophthalmologic surgery have a pretest probability of CAD in a range where stress testing could usefully select patients for angiography. Better use of existing patient data could improve predictions of perioperative adverse events without additional patient testing.

Consequences of preoperative cardiac stress testing-A cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the consequences of functional cardiac stress testing among patients considering noncardiac nonophthalmologic surgery. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of 118,552 patients who made 159,795 visits to a dedicated preoperative risk assessment and optimization clinic between 2008 and 2018. SETTING: A large integrated health system. PATIENTS: Patients who visited a dedicated preoperative risk assessment and optimization clinic before noncardiac nonophthalmologic surgery. MEASUREMENTS: To assess changes to care delivered, we measured the probability of completing additional cardiac testing, cardiac surgery, or noncardiac surgery. To assess outcomes, we measured time-to-mortality and total one-year mortality. MAIN RESULTS: In causal inference models, preoperative stress testing was associated with increased likelihood of coronary angiography (relative risk: 8.6, 95% CI 6.1-12.1), increased likelihood of percutaneous coronary intervention (RR: 4.1, 95% CI: 1.8-9.2), increased likelihood of cardiac surgery (RR: 6.8, 95% CI 4.9-9.4), decreased likelihood of noncardiac surgery (RR: 0.77, 95% CI 0.75-0.79), and delayed noncardiac surgery for patients completing noncardiac surgery (mean 28.3 days, 95% CI: 23.1-33.6). The base rate of downstream cardiac testing was low, and absolute risk increases were small. Stress testing was associated with higher mortality in unadjusted analysis but was not associated with mortality in causal inference analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative cardiac stress testing likely induces coronary angiography and cardiac interventions while decreasing use of noncardiac surgery and delaying surgery for patients who ultimately proceed to noncardiac surgery. Despite changes to processes of care, our results do not support a causal relationship between stress testing and postoperative mortality. Analyses of care cascades should consider care that is avoided or substituted in addition to care that is induced.

A behavioral intervention to promote use of multimodal pain medication for hospitalized patients: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can reduce pain and has become a core strategy to decrease opioid use, but there is a lack of data to describe encouraging use when admitting patients using electronic health record systems. OBJECTIVE: Assess an electronic health record system to increase ordering of NSAIDs for hospitalized adults. DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial of clinicians admitting adult patients to a health system over a 9-month period. Clinicians were randomized to use a standard admission order set. INTERVENTION: Clinicians in the intervention arm were required to actively order or decline NSAIDs; the control arm was shown the same order but without a required response. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was NSAIDs ordered and administered by the first full hospital day. Secondary outcomes included pain scores and opioid prescribing. RESULTS: A total of 20,085 hospitalizations were included. Among these hospitalizations, patients had a mean age of 58 years, and a Charlson comorbidity score of 2.97, while 50% and 56% were female and White, respectively. Overall, 52% were admitted by a clinician randomized to the intervention arm. NSAIDs were ordered in 2267 (22%) interventions and 2093 (22%) control admissions (p = .10). Similarly, there were no statistical differences in NSAID administration, pain scores, or opioid prescribing. Average pain scores (0-5 scale) were 3.36 in the control group and 3.39 in the intervention group (p = .46). There were no differences in clinical harms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Requiring an active decision to order an NSAID at admission had no demonstrable impact on NSAID ordering. Multicomponent interventions, perhaps with stronger decision support, may be necessary to encourage NSAID ordering.